GajapathiVarma vs State

K. Rajasekar, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.06.2025 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 194(1) of BNS, 2023, and subsequently under Sections 61(2), 103(1) of BNS, 2023 r/w 25(1AA), 25(1A) of Arms Act, 1959 in Crime No.222 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner's brother, namely Seenu, was murdered, and a case in this regard was registered in Crime No.118 of 2025. The deceased in the present case, Chakravarthy, was an Advocate and the husband of the defacto complainant. It is alleged that the deceased was shot dead by the accused, as he had attempted to secure bail for the accused who were involved in the murder of the petitioner's brother.

It is further alleged that the petitioner hatched a criminal conspiracy along with other accused, and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, A1 and A2 attacked the deceased (Advocate) and murdered him by firing gun shots.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that deceased was not murdered on the ground that deceased in this case was appeared in a criminal cases in support of the rival group of the petitioner herein, and the facts remain that continuously there was political rivalry between the other accused and the deceased and his group. This petitioner is only a brother of A1 he has been falsely implicated in this case, as if he also participated in the conspiracy. Now the case is committed to Sessions and pending in S.C.No.108 of 2025 on the file of the II Additional District Judge at Arakonam. He would further submit that the petitioner was arrested and he is in judicial custody from 12.06.2025 and is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

The learned counsel appearing for the intervener submitted that the deceased was murdered on account of the professional services rendered to the opposite group of the accused in this case. The investigation is not properly done and a petition seeking transfer of investigation has been filed before this Court, and the same is also pending. He further submitted, that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is a likelihood of tampering with witnesses and hampering the investigation. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that this is a case of murder of an Advocate who was appearing on behalf of his client. He further submitted that the petitioner murdered the deceased out of rivalry, and though the investigation has been completed and the final report filed, the enmity between the two groups still continues. He further submitted that now the case is committed to Sessions Court and pending in S.C.No.108 of 2025 and he further submitted all other accused detained under Act 14 of 1982. Hence, he strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report.

This Court while considering the bail application of A5 in this case, namely Sankar in Crl.OP.No.31283 of 2025 dated 17.11.2025, observed as follows:

“Considering the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and the period of incarceration and peruse the records it reveals that the deceased was not murdered on account of the professional service, it was done due to the political rivalry between the parties and further overtact against the petitioner is that he was not directly involved in the offence and alleged to have been participated in the conspiracy along with the brother of the petitioner herein and the petitioner is also not having any previous case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions”.

It was further submitted before this Court that the petitioner herein is also a similarly placed accused and he is the brother of A1 in this case. It was further submitted that it is not a case of enmity prevailing over the professional service, but rather a political rivalry, and that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 16.06.2025.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, and taking note of the fact that similarly placed accused, namely Sankar was granted bail by this Court in Crl.OP.No.31283 of 2025 dated 17.11.2025, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram and on further conditions that:-

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall stay at Kancheepuram and report before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.